The Affordable Care Act in the News

A proponent of the Affordable Care Act has admitted that insurance premiums will dramatically increase under the Act's reforms. The White House chief of staff has also suggested that the recent "compromise" on contraceptive coverage in health plans will ultimately save insurance companies money.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathon Gruber, a proponent of the health care reforms of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), has recently acknowledged that the "price of insurance premiums will dramatically increase under the reforms."[1]

Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco, agrees according to the Daily Caller. Pipes indicated that the Affordable Care Act will cause healthcare rationing, and that the Obamacare "will ultimately result in far greater costs across the board."[2]

On a related note, White House chief of staff Jack Lew indicated that the recent "compromise" proposed by the Obama administration requiring insurance companies to pay for the cost of birth control if religious non-profit insureds claim an exemption in their health plans "will not cost the insurance companies money." As reported by Talking Points Memo, Lew said on CNN's "State of the Union" that the total care of healthcare for persons without contraceptive coverage is higher than with such coverage.[3]

UPDATE: According to the Weekly Standard, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has said that self-insured entities should be required to pay for morning-after pills and birth control as part of the health insurance plans they provide. This would include organizations such as the Catholic Church in Washington, D.C., which is a self-insured institution that has expressed its moral objections to birth control.

Pelosi went on to say that "all institutions" that provide health insurance "should cover the full range of health insurance issues for women."[4]


  1. Words I almost never say in the same sentence, "I agree with Nancy Pelosi."
    While it is not my normal habit to support a liberal-driven agenda, I grow tired of what seems to have become an intentional disregard for the reproductive health of women. Medicine should be not only bipartisan but nondenominational as well.

  2. Yes of course you are right!

  3. Respectfully --- and I mean it because I say this with respect --- this is a good reason why lawyers (as we both are) should not dabble with policy issues. Nor should we rely on politically biased soruces for our information. If one actually looks at the underlying reports on which these artcles are based, Mr. Gruber (the economist cited as being a proponent of the Affordable Health Care Act) actually stated two interesting things. (1) the substantial increase in premiums will occur in a limited (but significant) sub-group of those who will be receiving insurance. (2) If one compares the present formulation of the Act with one in which the individual mandate is removed (which is the key change sought by Republican legislators), the amount of the significant premium increase for the sub-group will be 31% under the current Act, but it would still be an increase of 27 or 28% under an Act without individual mandate. Moreover, those premium increases would not be repeated annually.

    1. Admittedly, my blurb focused on the "red meat" of the article cited, but I disagree that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is solely a matter of policy. While billed as healthcare reform, PPACA is having and will continue to have a significant effect on health insurance law and regulation, and the health insurance industry. This blog, while focused on insurance regulatory law, also highlights news and information related to insurance regulatory topics. Nevertheless, your point is well-taken, and I will endeavor to present a more "fair and balanced" (tongue-in-cheek) approach. Last but not least, as soon as I find a truly non-politically biased news source, I promise to rely upon it faithfully.